Are you now or have you ever been?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, I would have to disgree with the assertion that the government controls the media. They don't. The media willingly (and, in some cases, more than happily) cater to the desires of the government. But the government doesn't actually forcibly control them.
How long that will last, though, is anyone's guess. The government already actively manipulates the media, after all...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I would not say the military is in charge /holds dominance either.
Posted by Bones McCoy (Member # 1480) on :
Wow. That's scary. 13 out of 14. It's a wonder how the world's symbol for freedom can become the complete antithesis in such a short period.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
What? It's more like 3-4 out of 14...
Posted by Bones McCoy (Member # 1480) on :
No, in my opinion, it's all true, except for the media being controlled by the state. Well, from an outsider's perspective, that is.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
The comment about the military was not that they hold power or dominance, but rather that they are given disproportionate funds even in times of domestic crisis, which does fit at the moment.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I cant agree: it's a war (declared or otherwise)- of course the military has more funding.
A greater indicator that things are going downhill would be prisoners held without trial for indefinite sentences and some forms of torture being considered acceptable.
All of which is a product of Bush's administration.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bones McCoy: It's a wonder how the world's symbol for freedom can become the complete antithesis in such a short period.
Wow. Is that really how you see yourselves?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Well, I actually see myself a cheeseburger. A delicious, double-patty cheeseburger with two slices of cheddar cheese, one slice of Swiss cheese, two tomato slices, lots of onions, a couple leaves of lettuce, a handful of pickles, a handful of jalape�o peppers, and (why the hell not?) three slices of crispy bacon. On a slightly toasted whole wheat bun, of course.
I AM DELICIOUS!
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
I am a carrot, but I'm also not American. Here's the original article: Fascism Anyone?
If you read it, it gives a better perspective due to the lack of flags etc in the background. Still, it is hard not to draw parellels with the US government, not the country.
Of course, I reckon Tony Blair has (not so) secret aspirations to put on a black uniform and knee high boots... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'll be the first to speak of BUsh's excesses but it's still the government the majority voted for.
Meanwhile the EU leadership seems hellbent on pushing through it's (rather unpopular) constitution.
Mabye not fascist exactly, but definitely not in touch with what the people want either.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, except, what the majority wants (or doesn't want) does not determine wether a state meets the criteria for fascism.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...it's still the government the majority voted for."
Well, the majority of those who actually voted. And even that can be disputed.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I would argue that, barring those actively kept away from the polls, the desires of people who don't vote are irrelevant. (Well, not totally. Voting isn't the only way, perhaps not even the most important way, to participate in the general business of making culture; you could say that someone who doesn't vote can influence, perhaps profoundly influence, someone who does. For instance, the effect having children can have on one's general outlook on life. But I'm going to stick with my gross oversimplification on account of it containing a truth, even if it does not fully describe it.)
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Well. Hung. Parenthesis.
Ever.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Interesting video yet I don't agree with much of it. For one thing, I don't believe Fascist governments buddy up with big companies if they weren't military based. When I was studying Nazism, I learned that Hitler didn't really care much for companies so as long they followed the rules. Also, I find that this country is increasingly more lax toward crime. I mean they lock people up for smoking weed cause its easy to bust a pothead, yet I recently heard that a local prison was releasing sex offenders cause the jails were to filled up with said potheads. Also, the gov doesn't own the media, big companies do. Companies that want more money so they go along with the supposed "public opinion".
Yeah Bush and friends are A-holes, but calling them fascists is going to extremes.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Ugh. So much wrong with videos like that. I can�t say I have read this professor�s work. But I think the maker�s interpretation of the characteristics of Fascism is really awry. Of course, everything I say here is subject to the development of the historiography of early 20th century political movements, still a developing enterprise. However, there are some big points he�s missing here if he is trying to give his viewers of the distinguishing characteristics of Fascism. Moreover, I think he�s conflating Fascism (most prominent in Italy, but found in the beliefs of smaller groups in other lands) and National Socialism (a more distinctly German movement).
In the interests of balance (and because I�m feeling garrulous after being righteously angered by a by someone doing something very wrong today), let me offer what I�ve understood to be a broader picture of Fascism.
Fascism went through stages like all political movements. But it did not spring up as a full-grown ideology overnight. It was an outgrowth of Marxism and adapted to the industrialization of Italy and the growing prosperity that made Communism inapplicable as a left-wing ideology. It is a more complex ideology than many have thought, though ultimately, its effectiveness lay in the economic stabilization its leaders gave their countries rather than any authentic reordering of public life. However, certain tenets solidified around the movement we visualize in our heads.
The first was a futurism not found today. This was a glorification and preference for the speed and efficiency of the modern industrialized war. It glorified modern war as means by which modern heroes could step forth out of the masses.
The second was syndicalism, a belief in the ownership of groups of the means of production. Functionally, this meant unions would be the owners of companies. However, in conjunction with a third, secularism, it took on a myth-making characteristic that attempted to use baser pre-conscious cognitive processes to appeal of the masses. (The Psychology of Crowds is an example of this. So would Jung�s archetypes, though these weren�t the ones Fascists had in mind.)
Along with secularism, Fascism took on an anti-Christian flavor. Mussolini thought it was a feminine and childish religion that softened the people. A return to the stoicism of pagan Rome was a more suitable ethical basis for his new republic. Lastly, Fascism had a communitarian element (very related to its syndicalism) that it shared in common with Marxism.
And to state very quickly, because it�s late and I�m getting tired, National Socialism is distinguished by its opposition to the Enlightenment, Christianity, private means of production (though not purely nationalized means), and by its embrace of pre-civilizational paganism and science as a tool of that paganism�s goals.
That said, I don�t think the professor is off-base in what he has observed; but I think what he�s latching onto as the operational differences between liberal western democracies and earlier totalitarian regimes are wrong. There was nationalism back then, and there is today. But so what? There was nationalism on both sides of WWII. By his measure, the Allies were wrong to believe their way of life was the better one for mankind. And I agree with them. Same for identifying enemies and rallying behind defeating them. I for one have no problem stamping out Islamofascism and vilifying it for the nihilistic ideology it is. Supremacy of the military? It�s a war. (Jason�s right on that.) Of course the military needs money. I�m OK not having government-�purchased� prescription drugs when there�s the risk of a radioactive suitcase coming to a town near me. Am I obsessed with national security? Not obsessed, but very concerned. It�s common among conservatives.
As for controlled mass media, if he�s thinking that confronting reporters and organizations that disagree with you and not allowing them to frame the debate how they want, then, yes, there�s plenty of it. I won�t say we�ve not made mistakes, but I think the supporters of the war are entitled to show the people what�s been accomplished. And we�ve done the same thing in every war we�ve ever fought.
If corporate power protection means we haven�t modeled our economy on the social democratic model, then yes, we�ve got that too. But by that measure, the EU is more Fascist than we are. (Although, as Jason observed, Fascism was supported by the people, and this constitution is emphatically not.)
As for crime and punishment obsessions, living in a city with plenty of it, that complaint is falling on deaf ears here. I think a lot of people on the east side of my city think about it a lot, and I would not call them Fascists.
As for Daryus�s comment on how the United States sees itself, I�ll give you a comment on America I heard one Catholic pundit (I think) give: America is both an example and a warning.
Instead of just tearing down Mr. Rich�s work as a shameless acceleration of Godwin�s Law, let me offer an alternative: years ago, I heard it hypothesized that a good example of what a Fascist society would look like (had it survived WW2) is China.
I�ve been turning this around in my head for some time as I�ve watched events unfold. And I don�t know enough about China to come to a conclusion. I�m curious what you all think since some of you might keep up with what�s going on there more than I.
Discuss.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'm waiting for "Abbadonism" to sweep the world in it's iron grip.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This is, incidentally, why I think the F word is one the Left really ought to avoid, since by framing the argument as "look, these bad things are just like these other bad things," it is left open to the refutation "wait, this other bad thing isn't like the first thing at all; therefore the first thing isn't bad." Look at the way critics of the recent Amnesty International report have fastened on to the word "gulag." Our prison camps aren't the same as Soviet gulags, therefore we're in the clear!
Two bad things do not have to be alike to both be bad, and I wish we'd see more facts and fewer metaphors when it came to things like this.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I think I'm beginning to understand the problem here. We always want to compare today's problems to something in the past: something everyone will immediately associate with "bad". But, the fact is, people are always inventing new sorts of bad. Fascism and Naziism were both brand-new at one time. But, no-one tries to describe them in terms of their predecessors. It's unnecessary. And perhaps the same should be said of today's neoconservatism. It doesn't need to be compared to fascism or totalitarianism or anything like that. It's its own particular flavor of nastiness, and perhaps we should start viewing it for what it is, not what other systems were.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Look at the way critics of the recent Amnesty International report have fastened on to the word "gulag." Our prison camps aren't the same as Soviet gulags, therefore we're in the clear!
If a gulag is a place where enemies of a government are held prisoner indefinitely without formal charges, any trial or legal representation and held in harsh conditions and without benifit of rights afforded by international treaty in an effort by a government to make them more cooperative or to share suspected information, then we have a hell of a gulag.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Sol: good point about that fallacy. (I can't remember the name of it right now, though. Affirming the consequent, perhaps?)
Tim: while I disagree with your view of the war, I think you are on the right track recognizing the limits of using history as any kind of metric. On the other side of the issue Less Harris wrote about the same thing. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"In the interests of balance..."
Thank you, but if you were really trying to bring balance (which, for reasons unclear to me, you often seem to think is needed), you'd link to objective sources and not to other opinion pieces.
Now, I don't wish to be a polemic (for once), but your arguments, while garrulous in the extreme, are seriously unbecoming of someone who passed the bar, so if you don't mind...
"There was nationalism back then, and there is today. But so what?"
Because the nationalism back then led to a world war, and the nationalism today isn't much better.
"There was nationalism on both sides of WWII. By his measure, the Allies were wrong to believe their way of life was the better one for mankind."
No, by his measure, believing that your way of life is better isn't an issue of wrong or right, but rather how and why you act on those beliefs. Two very different things.
"And I agree with them. Same for identifying enemies and rallying behind defeating them."
And, again, your beliefs are not relevant, only wether your actions guided by those beliefs are at all merited.
"I for one have no problem stamping out Islamofascism and vilifying it for the nihilistic ideology it is."
Yes, we've noticed. Of course, you of all people should know that an ideology can't be "stamped out", no matter how many times you contort its name in posts on an online message-board in frustration, but don't let that stand in the way of your mission.
"I�m OK not having government-�purchased� prescription drugs when there�s the risk of a radioactive suitcase coming to a town near me. Am I obsessed with national security? Not obsessed, but very concerned. It�s common among conservatives.
Well, conservatives have a lot of concerns, but that doesn't mean they're justified.
"...if he�s thinking that confronting reporters and organizations that disagree with you and not allowing them to frame the debate how they want..."
You know perfectly well what he's thinking, so don't twist his arguments to fit your own views, please.
"If corporate power protection means we haven�t modeled our economy on the social democratic model, then yes, we�ve got that too. But by that measure, the EU is more Fascist than we are."
Ah, the obligatory parallel between social democracy and fascism. I was wondering when you were going to draw that one.
"America is both an example..."
Of...?
"...and a warning."
About...?
"I would disagree that mainstream religion is diametrically opposed to what we�re doing overseas. For a smattering of essays from the perspective of Catholics (mainstream enough for you?), try Ratzinger Fanclub�s section on just war."
Oh yes, essays on the compatibility of mainstream religion and American foreign objectives from a subset of practicioners of that same mainstream religion. Brilliant.
Posted by wagner vieira (Member # 1586) on :
I search ON CANCER WITH the Pentagon, US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, since 30 years. PLEASE VISIT [link removed] ufo blitz krieg august 3/6/9/11 Thanks, Wagner Vieira, 65.
[ June 04, 2005, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by wagner vieira (Member # 1586) on :
I search ON CANCER, WITH the Pentagon, USA, US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, since 30 years. PLEASE VISIT [link removed] By ALL OF US. Thanks, Wagner Vieira, 65 from Curitiba city, Parana state, (ex)Brasil.
[ June 04, 2005, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
What the hell was that?
Anyway...
"Tim: while I disagree with your view of the war, I think you are on the right track recognizing the limits of using history as any kind of metric."
If that's so, I would invite you to rethink your use of the term "Islamofascism".
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Cartman, you were nice enough to respond to my points, so I�ll see if I can improve upon what I wrote before to tidy it up a bit.
By balance, I meant someone contributing to the conversation who was not of a socialist, a liberal (in American political lexicography), or an opponent of the war. I�m linking to the pieces as opinion. I make no representation that they are purely descriptive. I�m offering alternative opinions, not clarifying facts by them. My reasons for continuing to post are that I enjoy the give and take of our conversations on the Flameboard and that we can all learn something from each other, and that I might have something to offer people here as I have learned from them.
As for passing the bar and making the arguments that I have, let me state off the bat that passing the bar is not a measure of someone�s morality. There are good lawyers and bad lawyers. And conservative lawyers and liberal lawyers that fall in both those categories too. As for �minding,� Balaam invited comment, and I had hoped you all would not object to an old member sharing his thoughts.
I disagree on your reading of nationalism. The nationalism of the Allies did not lead to the war. It was a combination of bad ideology in Germany, Japan, and Italy (of which their nationalism was a part), poor diplomacy on our part in the wake of WW1, and perhaps the economic problems that had unbalanced the political economies of the period. (I would, however, agree that nationalism had a great deal more to do as a cause of WW1. Its importance to the second is matched by other factors. What I did not like about the film was that it implied it was fascism�s primary attribute. I�m not convinced.)
I�m not sure I�m reading your second objection correctly, so I�m not sure if I disagree with you or not. I am not an ethical relativist. If I remember the terminology of the field correctly, I would be an ethical objectivist. Specifically, natural law is a system I think comes closest to what Truth we can grasp. Why you act to achieve certain ends I would agree is important. For an ethical objectivist, the thought process entails labeling some systems more consistent with human dignity than others. So I would tentatively say neither of us is wrong. I went with the end result of how I think through the morality of choosing to confront other evils. I could have gone with the first step of Why, but both get you to the same place by these means.
�Stamping out� is shorthand metaphor for a longer phrase I didn�t write out. By that I meant thoroughly discrediting the idea in the minds of those who would otherwise be inclined to adopt it as their own. Groups and nations throughout history have worked to discredit ideas. You don�t actually kill them, but you show why they are morally wrong and empirically inapposite. And I stand by discrediting those ideas as one part of winning this conflict.
Labeling the ideology we are fighting �Islamofascism� I don�t think is unmerited. We can bicker over which one we like best all day, but fascism had a lot to do with the origins of radical violent Islamic terrorism. It�s a mouth full of syllables, but I stand by my preferred word.
Concern over national security? I disagree. I think 2,977 people killed in a single day are good cause for concern. I think it�s more important than any other issue considering how easy it is to kill by more effective means like biological weapons. It�s justified in my mind.
As for the media, you�re right, I shouldn�t have pretended I have a window into his head like that. However, I disagree that my characterization (as a reply to what he was saying) is not unfounded. I could have phrased it better, but no one controls the media, and they are free (within certain well-founded constraints) to publish what they like. Between DailyKos and the Drudge Report, we get a media that is independent enough of government to publish stories it thinks are important to the public�s knowledge.
I stand by my statement regarding social democracy and capitalism. We�ve chosen one in the United States, and if he insists on labeling it fascist, I�m not miffed by it considering (what I suspect are) his proffered alternatives.
Parallels between the EU and fascism are of course speculative, but not unfounded. I don�t think the EU is fascist, but on cursory examination, it shares some characteristics (just like the US does by Mr. Rich�s measures). There is a higher degree of government intervention in the economic sphere than there is in liberal American capitalism. Intervention in commerce was a distinguishing feature of fascism; therefore, I don�t think it was out of line in pointing out as a criticism of Mr. Rich�s implicit argument that other nations are less fascist than the United States is. I thought the topic too big to expand upon when it was made in a point in passing, but thought it was worth mentioning.
As for the aphorism, I�ll leave it to your imagination.
And lastly, with religion, I get really tired of the implicit requirement that people have to be apart from religion to understand it and apply it unhypocritically. Secular ethics have their own bedrock assumptions just like religions have. I find it difficult to believe that insulation from religions� ethical and metaphysical systems renders observations of them and exercises in using them (without subscribing to the full panoply of belief) inherently more accurate. But this is too large a topic to elaborate more here.
Probably won�t be able to respond to anything else as it�s going to be a busy weekend now, but since I enjoy these exchanges, I thought a bit more wouldn�t hurt.
Tim: I understand the point you make. The reason I still use the term is that, while fascism might have something to teach us about totalitarianism in the modern age, understanding fascism is more relevant to studying our opponents� beliefs since their applied program grew directly out of the ideologies of the early twentieth century. The situation is certainly sui generis, but I, like, say, Victor Davis Hanson, would disagree with Lee Harris that past paradigms have nothing to offer. (Although I think that might be taking Harris�s statements too far. I need to read his book before I understand him better.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
HOly...! David, you're the Reed Richards of Flare.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Jason, forgive me, but it's been a long time since I read the Fantastic Four. (And it's still 5 weeks until the movie comes out.) Could you explain the metaphor?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
You stretch things out far too long. I mean, seriously, has anyone actually bothered to read his posts? And do you think that taking the time to write all that is going to change anyone's mind, or political stance even one iota?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, but what post couldn't that criticism be applied to?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
It just needs to be said from time to time.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: Jason, forgive me, but it's been a long time since I read the Fantastic Four. (And it's still 5 weeks until the movie comes out.) Could you explain the metaphor?
Reed's the smartest guy in the Marvel universe, but sometimes uses three words istead of one to convey a point.
I do read your posts though- and Cartman's replies.
I also look forward to more on-topic remarks from that new firebrand Wagner Vieira.
What? ...oh.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Jason: if being that smart means I get to date and marry Jessica Alba, there are worse fates. Thanks for reading. Probably haven't changed any minds, but I've learned from you all. And it is the Flameboard where we come for "frank exchanges of views."
Lee: Part of what makes them long is that I write on Word before pasting to the reply field. Easier to edit. And fewer mistakes. I'll make efforts to shorten them. But I also hate having to go back and clean up when things aren't explained the first time.
Yeah, we going to hear back from this guy? Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I cant agree: it's a war (declared or otherwise)- of course the military has more funding.
And for the past decade, when there hasn't been a war (declared or otherwise)? Anyone got a "military expenditure by GNP" graph handy?
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Well, but what post couldn't that criticism be applied to?
We seem to have worn down Omega over the years...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Our task is not complete untill Omega's a regular at Vegas, call-girls know him by name and liquor stores keep his credit card number on file for call-in service.
Only then complete will his training be.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
Guys. Think about this. If Hitler had been voted in a fair and free election (as fair and as free as elections can be), then proceeded to do his business in Poland and Western Europe, but THEN, 4 years later, let's say, was removed by a fair and free election, who would be responsible for his atrocities?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Displaying flags everywhere is fascist? I always considered it a sign of patriotism and pride. I've never been to the UK, but they also seem proud of their flag as well.
There's a good reason why the military is getting more funding. Aside from the obvious reason of having to build new tanks, jeeps, jets, helocopters, etc...especially to replace the ones that have been lost since this whole ordeal started.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Displaying flags everywhere is fascist? I always considered it a sign of patriotism and pride. I've never been to the UK, but they also seem proud of their flag as well."
Have you ever seen UK politicians wearing little Union Jack pins on their clothes at all times?
Displaying flags when and where appropriate is patriotic. Displaying flags everywhere is nationalism of a borderline dangerous variety.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Actually, there's been an explosion in the flying of St. George's Crosses in recent years, and it's often tied to far-right oganisations like the British National Party.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
And aren't the BNP nationalists of a dangerous variety? Most of their prominent membership have criminal records. Even the tories, who've been trying to recapture the image of being right wing ever since the orange-faced twonk Robert Kilroy Silk opened his mouth again have denounced them as bunch of thugs masquerading as a political party.
The difference between flag flying in the UK and especially England compared to America is that we don't have the Union Flag over a single school, very few private buildings ever have even a small Union Flag or St. George's Cross. I've seen more Indian flags being displayed in this country than I have St. George's Cross.
Maybe in Wales and Scotland people are a bit more patriotic with the St. Andrews Saltire and that dragon flag the welsh have (dunno what the flag's called) but I've never been to, or seen much of either part of the country so I can't comment on their local patriotism compared to in England.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The Internet says it's called "Y Ddraig Goch", which apparently means "the red dragon".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A Lovecraftian word if I ever heard one.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Most words in the Gallic and Brithonic languages sound like Lovecraftian entities with too many tentacles that want to destroy mankind.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah....thanksgiving in R'Leya. So many memories.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
It's far easier to point to another group and claim they are the problem then it is to address the problems of your own group and take the appropriate steps to fix them. People respond more quickly and with more energy to a perceived threat from an external force than to their own internal operations. It then becomes easy for someone with an anger issue to play on these same issues in others lives and turn their thinking, subtly, till you've turned them to your own liking. Once that is done, you have your own little mafia/gestapo/religion/political party to achieve YOUR view of how things "ought to be". It doesn't matter if your machinations lead to your own destruction as long as you take down your enemy. And your actions will lead to another group's response to you in the same way and the cycle continues.
Look at everyday people. Some are overweight, but they won't diet or exercise. Some are lacking education, but don't try to go to school or even darken the doorstep of a library. You see people's houses falling down into disrepair. But rather than fix the problems, they have cable, HBO, and their own Keg-i-nators. And then they blame their problems on some other group.
Humanity always has an excuse. From "The woman that thou gavest me" to Fraudian (pun entended) blaming your parents for your failures. Rather than a true introspection of your own weaknesses and issues, focus on what someone else is doing wrong. It is far easier to justify your own lacking by comparatively measuring them to others "WORSE" failings. That is the pitiful attempt to assuage one's own personal guilt and leads to a natural "us vs. them" mentality.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Which is fine to say as an induvual, but find a leader that can hold office by saying- "Our problems are our own fault" nad get anything accomplished.
He would be opposed at every turn by his own lack of popularity.
During times of peace (say the Clinton administration as example), public response to progessive (some would say "liberal") leglislation is far more positive than during a time of percieved danger.
Not that it's any excuse for the abuses in power we've witnessed in the Bush administration.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)